PinDown failed to make the test pass again by undoing one of the commits. Consequently the confidence is low for this type of report. The commit mentioned in the bug report is the first revision at which the test fails so the bad commit is either this commit or a later commit. The commit in the bug report may have been fixed and another issue may have been introduced at a later time.
|The confidence level for this type of bug report (not validated) is low.|
How Did PinDown Reach This Conclusion?
PinDown tested the following during debug to reach this conclusion (using the same test and seed as in the test phase):
The test fails when retested a second time on the same revision as during the test phase
The test fails when tested on the specified commit itself (including all older commits, but no newer commits)
The test passes on the revision just before the specified commit (sometimes the code is modified to achieve this)
Most important: PinDown tried, but failed, to make the test pass again on the same revision as during the test phase with only the specified commit unrolled.
Turning It Off
If you don’t want engineers to be sent bug reports if the debug analysis has not been validated then you can turn these types of bug reports off. You do that by setting the following command:
Now these bug reports will be reported as intermittent instead and noone will be assigned the bug report.
Potential Stability Issues
Most often this type of unvalidated bug reports is due to lack of computer resources, i.e. the computer farm is busy. However, sometimes it may also be due to some kind of stability problem making the test results untrustworthy.
Random Instability: With constrained random testing, reproducing the same test scenario using the same seed number is not possible if the testbench is too different than the revision of the testbench that was used during the test phase. You can judge the level of risk for random instability by simply reading the bug report. There is only a risk for random instability if the bug report describes substantial changes to the testbench (design changes does not matter).
Uncaptured Randomness: With constrained random testing, it is important to capture all randomly generated inputs to the test. If there is a random generator which is not controlled by a seed then this random generator needs to be turned off or captured in some other way (maybe with a different seed). Otherwise we are not retesting the same test. A variant of this scenario is when running in a very flaky environment. Maybe the hardware on which the tests are running are very different from each other. This is not the case with computer farms, but when you are testing ASIC samples and PCB boards in an early development phase it may be the case. In this scenario it is important to re-run on exactly the same piece of hardware, again to minimise randomn behaviour. Some instability can be handled with the set_error_response command.
PinDown Setup Problem: If PinDown has been setup incorrectly, e.g. not having the correct criterias for pass and fail then PinDown will interpret the results incorrectly (see the Extraction User Guide).
Severe IT issues: If all failures are due to IT issues, both in the test phase and when re-running the tests during the debug phase then there may not be any real failures at all, just intermittent IT-issues. In this scenario you should increase the number of times a test is repeated in the debug phase to make sure it is a real deterministic failure before the debugging starts (see the set_error_response command).